Shouldnt there be a debate instead of mudslinging with global climate change?

We have had decades of debate in scientific journals. Unfortunately, the real debate requires hard work and a high level of scientific understanding. It is not easy reading and so the popular media do not cover it properly. If you wish to look through it, i suggest you check the archives of scientific journals. Here are the two most respected scientific journals in the world:

http://www.sciencemag.org/

http://www.nature.com/

Geophysical Research Letters, The Holocene, PNAS, Transactions of the Royal Society, Climatic Change, Journal of Climate are also respected sources with plenty of climate research in them.

What are you talking about? You have your debate right here on this site, at many other blog websites, at the water cooler at work and school. What kind of debate are you looking for? Debate amongst who? By whom?

The political debate is raging. The public debate is ongoing by those interested in the subject. There is no debate within the expert scientific community however. The research on all matters that pertain to AGW continues to evolve and add to our knowledge base. Some of this research forces us to ask new questions that go to the details of what is happening and what to expect in the future, but the core science based in fundamental physics is not in any dispute at all.

What you want, I presume, is for Al Gore to debate Lord Monckton...what a joke that would be. Two non-scientists trying to win a debate using debating tactics when neither is truly qualified to discuss the science in detail.

Yes, however the proponents refuse to debate, they claim the science is settled.

We, the skeptics, are simply stalling now. The weather proves us right, the Copenhagen treaty proves the conspiracy theorists right, every time Al Gore, Gordon Brown, and Jacques Chirac open their yaps, the conspiracies are further confirmed.

The weather station frauds prove that the science is flawed. So-called peer reviewed papers only confirm that Dana1981 agrees with Antarticice (two self-proclaimed scientists here on answers).

Global warming has joined Scientology as just another pseudo religion. Until they engage the skeptics in actual open debate, it will continue to be nothing more than a cult.

EDIT: Tesla's was only the greatest mind of the modern era. Without him, none of our modern luxuries and conveniences would have been possible. On the other hand, The Theory of Relativity is unprovable. Get a clue Paul.

Problem is I just don't see what can be done about it. Alternative energy is just not that great. There are so many more people today using energy than there was 50 years ago and global warming is suppose to be a problem that started further back than that. Even if you passed laws that cut us back it still would not make a big enough dent in co2 emissions. So if is was a problem starting so long ago how could we cut back energy usage further back than that.

It just is not going to work. Are you going to start saying people have to apply for a car and then deny 50% of the people to buy a car. Say if someone goes over so much power usage in a day then swicth off their electricity till the next day. Energy efficient appliances just won't make the dent we need to stop the emmisions.

All this is where the mud slinging comes from. So many want the co2 emisions to stop, but they don't because right now it can't be done on a large enough scale.

Power companies need money to survive to pay its workers, people want power for their homes so they pay for it. Solar panels and wind turbines are expensive and don't give much power so people don't buy them for their homes. Electric cars don't have much power and take several hours to recharge so people don't buy them. This cycle goes on and on and on and it makes people mad so they blame the whole thing on something else.

Until a major breakthrough is made on the alternative energy front, then this is going to continue, making people mad and slinging mud, but nothing will be done about it anytime soon and that is the reality of it. It's like getting mad because the sky is blue and you want it some other color.

This confusion always happens when liberal minds suppress truth and control the media so only their theology is taught. right now the planet is losing 3% of its heat every year because that is how much the sun has cooled. So in 3 years the world has cooled to where it was in 1918 and in less than 10 years more if the sun remains quiescent we will be equivalent to the Dalton solar minimum of 1816 where they had easter parties on the thames in downtown London. But then as it has been for thousands of years the central purpose of liberalism is keeping certain people that had the right ancestors in political power no matter how ignorant and corrupt they are. Where moderates and conservatives feel that only the most honest and intelligent should be allowed to hold political office the liberals laugh and humiliate honest men with lies and distortions to keep honesty suppressed.

Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_200...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.h...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....

http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmosphe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

Yes there should be a debate. However, the debate will not occur because Al Gore ( and the rest) know that they would lose. Al was challenged to debate by the Czech president and Al refused. As a response to those who are believers here is a well researched paper on the topic.

http://www.nationscrier.com/index.php?option=com_c...

The debate happens every day in the scientific journals among climate scientists who are actively researching the issue. Less than 1% of peer-reviewed scientific studies dispute that humans are causing global warming.

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

I don't understand why laymen feel they need to debate this. If 10 doctors tell you that you need heart surgery, and 1 says well, maybe if you don't do anything you'll be okay, do you argue with the 10 doctors?

The only mudslinging I see is coming for deniers recent examples were one who was trying to link environmentalism to nazis that is not mudslinging it's just sick the product of a feeble mind.

How could you have a debate with deniers, to have a debate you have to have two sides, in the case of the Science, while there is some difference over the scale and detail of change we can expect, there is pretty much global agreement that change is happening.

While deniers, as of the moment, have so many different theories it is ridiculous and many of those are simply groundless conspiracy theories. It's the Sun, the U.N, It's Gore, It's lying scientists, it's the communists, the data is wrong, Govt's want to control us, it's Volcanoes, It's cosmic rays etc etc etc

The last actually uses information from a real scientific theory from a number of years ago, but neglects to mention the theory was also discounted years ago as well.

While deniers continue to try an call AGW theory a religion, it is they who actual act like a religion. Despite denier claims the data is fake

The data now available is wide ranging from temp to sea level to glacial retreat.

The very reason that deniers have so many theories is pretty simple it is not about science it is about discrediting the science to the public this is why they are not that worried they can't get their theories into scientific journals because for groups like the Heartland Institute it is about public opinion not science and you only have to look into who funds them to see why that is important to them.

Absolutely, but how do you moderate the debate? In the answers given thus far I see at least one is dismissive of the science. Already this individual has slammed the door on debate, and then blames it on the "other side." So how does the so-called neutral party determine what is verifiable?

The debate does exist in some fashion though, but generally not on this site.

Can you name one living person who in your own words "knows nothing about the subject but scientifically is knowledgable"?

It would be nice but the internet has made good and bad knowledge equally accessible so this debate would go on to 'infinity & beyond'.

I agree with what you're saying but it is something of a Utopian fantasy.